Corpuz vs Sto Tomas Digest | Persons

CORPUZ  vs.  STO  TOMAS  

Divorce  –  Foreign  Divorces   Date:  11  August  2010,  1987  Constitution   Ponente:  Brion,  J.     SUMMARY:   Petitioner   Gerbert   Corpuz   was   a   former   Filipino   citizen   who   acquired   Canadian   citizenship   through   naturalization.   He   was   married   to   the   respondent   Daisylyn   Sto.   Tomas   in   January   2005.   Soon   after   petitioner   left   for   Canada   for   work.   He   returned   sometime   in   April   2005   to   surprise   his   wife   and   was   shocked  by  the  infidelity  on  the  part  of  his  wife.  He  went   back   to   Canada   and   filed   a   petition   for   divorce   which   was  granted.  Two  years  later,  desirous  to  marry  another   woman  he  loved,  he  registered  the  divorce  decree  in  the   Pasig  City  Civil  Registry  Office  and  was  informed  that  the   foreign   decree   must   first   be   judicially   recognized   by   a   competent   Philippine   court.   Petitioner   filed   for   judicial   recognition   of   foreign   divorce   and   declaration   of   marriage   as   dissolved   with   the   RTC   where   respondent   failed   to   submit   any   response.   The   RTC   denied   the   petition   on   the   basis   that   the   petitioner   lacked   locus   standi   based   on   Article   26   of   the   FC.   Corpuz   filed   a   petition   for   review   on   certiorari.   The   court   ruled   that   although  2nd  par  of  Art.  26  does  not  extend  to  petitioner,   it  does  not  strip  him  of  his  legal  interest  either.         ISSUES:   1. WON  the  second  paragraph  of  Article  26  of  the   Family   Code   extends   to   aliens   the   right   to   petition   a   court   of   this   jurisdiction   for   the   recognition  of  a  foreign  divorce  decree  -­‐  NO   2. WON   the   unavailability   of   the   second   par.   of   Article   26   to   aliens   strip   petitioner   of   his   legal   interest   to   petition   the   court   for   the   recognition  of  his  foreign  divorce  decree  -­‐  NO   POLIDO  |  ECHIVERRI  

  FACTS:   1. Petitioner   Gerbert   Corpuz   was   a   former   Filipino   citizen   who   acquired   Canadian   citizenship   through  naturalization.     2. He  was  married  to  the  respondent  Daisylyn  Sto.   Tomas  in  January  2005.  Soon  after  petitioner  left   for   Canada   for   work.   He   returned   sometime   in   April  2005  to  surprise  his  wife  and  was  shocked   by  the  infidelity  on  the  part  of  his  wife.     3. He  went  back  to  Canada  and  filed  a  petition  for   divorce  which  was  granted.     4. Two   years   later,   desirous   to   marry   another   woman   he   loved,   he   registered   the   divorce   decree  in  the  Pasig  City  Civil  Registry  Office  and   was  informed  that  the  foreign  decree  must  first   be   judicially   recognized   by   a   competent   Philippine  court.     5. Petitioner  filed  for  judicial  recognition  of  foreign   divorce  and  declaration  of  marriage  as  dissolved   with  the  RTC  where  respondent  failed  to  submit   any   response.   The   RTC   denied   the   petition   on   the  basis  that  the  petitioner  lacked  locus  standi   based  on  Article  26  of  the  FC.   6. Corpuz  filed  a  petition  for  review  on  certiorari.                  

Related  Provisions:     Article  15,  New  Civil  Code   Laws   relating   to   family   rights   and   duties,   or   to   the   status,   condition   and   legal   capacity   of   persons   are   binding   upon   citizens   of   the   Philippines,   even   though   living  abroad.  (9a)     Article  26,  Family  Code   All   marriages   solemnized   outside   the   Philippines,   in   accordance   with   the   laws   in   force   in   the   country   where   they   are   solemnized,  and  valid  there  as  such,  shall   also  be  valid   in  this  country,  except   those   prohibited   under   Articles   35(1),(4),   (5),   (6),  36,  37  and  38.     Where   a   marriage   between   a   Filipino   citizen   and   a   foreigner   is   validly   celebrated   and   a   divorce   is   thereafter   validly   obtained   abroad   by   the   alien   spouse   capacitating   him   or   her   to   remarry,   the   Filipino   spouse   shall   have   capacity  to  remarry  under  Philippine  law.     Prohibitions:   Article  35   (1)   Those   contracted   by   any   party   below   eighteen   years   of   age   even   with   consent   of  parents  or  guardians   (4)   Those   bigamous   or   polygamous   marriages  not  falling  under  Article  41   (5)   Those   contracted   through   mistake   of   one   contracting  party  as  to  the  identity   of   the  other;  and,     (6)   Those   subsequent   marriages   that   are   void  under  Article  53     Article  36,  Family  Code   A  marriage  contracted  by  any  party  who,   at   the   time   of   the   celebration,   was   psychologically   incapacitated   to   comply   with   the   essential   marital   obligations   of   marriage,   shall   likewise   be   void   even   if   such   incapacity   becomes   manifest   only   after   its   solemnization.   (as   amended   by   1   EO  No.  277)    

    HELD:     NO:   The   alien   spouse   cannot   claim   under   the   second   paragraph   of   Art   26   of   the   Family   Code   because   the   substantive   right   it   establishes   is   in   favour   of   the   Filipino   spouse.     Only  the  Filipino  spouse  can  invoke  the  second   par  of  Art  26  of  the  Family  Code.     NO:  The  unavailability  of  the  second  paragraph  of  Art  26   of   the   Family   Code   to   aliens   does   not   necessarily   strip   the  petitioner  of  legal  interest  to  petition  the  RTC  for  the   recognition   of   his   foreign   divorce   decree.   The   petitioner,   being   a   naturalized   Canadian   citizen   now,   is   clothed   by   the  presumptive  evidence  of  the  authenticity  of  foreign   divorce  decree  with  conformity  to  alien’s  national  law.     The   Pasig   City   Civil   Registry   acted   out   of   line   when   it   registered   the   foreign   decree   of   divorce   on   the   petitioner   and   respondent’s   marriage   certificate   without   judicial   order   recognizing   the   said   decree.     The   registration   of   the   foreign   divorce   decree   without   the   requisite  judicial  recognition  is  void.     RATIO:   The   legislative   intent   behind   Art   26(2)   is   “to   avoid   the   absurd   situation   whre   the   Filipino   spouse   remains   married   to   the   alien   spouse   who,   after   obtaining   a   divorce  is  no  longer  married  to  the  Filipino  spouse”.  The   legislative  intent  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  Filipino  spouse   by   clarifying   his   or   her   marital   status,   settling   the   doubts   created  by  the  divorce  decree.     The  foreign  divorce  decree  is  presumptive  evidence  of  a   right  that  clothes  the  party  with  legal  interest  to  petition   for  its  recognition  in  this  jurisdiction.       POLIDO  |  ECHIVERRI  

      Remedy  Available  to  Alien  Spouse:   The   foreign   divorce   decree   itself,   after   its   authenticity   and   conformity   with   the   alien's   national   law   have   been   duly  proven  according  to  our  rules  of  evidence,  serves  as   a   presumptive   evidence   in   favor   of   the   alien   spouse,   pursuant  to  Sec.  48,  Rule  39  of  the  Rules  of  Court  which   provides   for   the   effect   of   foreign   judgment   (Please   see   pertinent   provisions   of   the   Rules   of   Court,   particularly   Sec.  48,  Rule  39  and  Sec.  24  Rule  132)     Note:  In  this  case,  the  SC  considered  the  recording  of  the   divorce   decree   on   Corpuz   and   Sto.   Tomas'   marriage   certificate   as   legally   improper.   No   judicial   order   yet   exists   recognizing   the   foreign   divorce   decree,   thus,   the   Pasig   City   Civil   Registry   Office   acted   totally   out   of   turn   and   without   authority   of   law   when   it   annotated   the   Canadian   divorce   decree   of   Corpuz   and   Sto.   Tomas'   marriage  certificate,  on  the  strength  alone  of  the  foreign   decree  presented  by  Corpuz        

The   petition   for   review   on   certiorari   is   GRANTED,   the   RTC   decision   is   REVERSED   and  Court  ordered  the  remand  of  the  case  to   the   trial   court   for   further   proceedings   in   light  of  the  ruling.            

2  

Article  37,  Family  Code   Marriages  between  the  ff.  are  incestuous   and  void  from  the  beginning,  whether  the   relationship   between   the   parties   be   legitimate  or  illegitimate:   (1)  Between   ascendants  and  descendants   of  any  degree;  and,   (2)   Between   brothers   and   sisters,   whether  of  the  full-­‐  or  half-­‐blood.  (81a)     Article  38,  Family  Code   The   following   marriages   shall   be   void   from   the   beginning   for   reasons   of   public   policy:   (1)   Between   collateral   blood   relatives   whether   legitimate   or   illegitimate,   up   to   the  fourth  civil  degree;   (2)   Between   step-­‐parents   and   step-­‐ children;   (3)  Between   parents-­‐in-­‐law   and   children-­‐ in-­‐law;   (4)  Between  the  adopting  parent  and  the   adopted  child;   (5)   Between   the   surviving   spouse   of   the   adopting  parent  and  the  adopted  child;   (6)   Between   the   surviving   spouse   of   the   adopted  child  and  the  adopter;   (7)   Between   an   adopted   child   and   a   legitimate  child  of  the  adopter;   (8)   Between   adopted   children   of   the   same  adopter;  and   (9)   Between   parties  where  one,  with   the   intention   to   marry   the   other,   killed   that   other   person’s  spouse,  or  his  or  her  own   spouse.  (82)